Observational studyEuropean journal of ophthalmology2024
Optic neuropathy diagnosis in the emergency room - retrospective observational study of the last 18 years.
Observational study in European journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOptic neuropathies (ON), a broad spectrum of disorders of the optic nerve, are a frequent cause of visual loss, presenting either in isolation or associated to neurological or systemic disorders. They are often first evaluated in the Emergency Room (ER) and a rapid determination of the etiology is imperative for implementing timely and appropriate treatment. We aim to describe ER demographic data and clinical characteristics, as well as the performed imaging exams, of patients subsequently hospitalized and diagnosed with ON. Furthermore, we seek to explore the accuracy of ER discharge diagnosis and evaluate possible predictive factors that may influence it.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 192 patients admitted to the ward of the Neurology Department of Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João (CHUSJ), with a discharge diagnosis of ON. Subsequently, we selected those admitted from the ER, with clinical, laboratory and imaging data, between January 2004 and December 2021.
resultsWe included 171 patients. All participants were discharged from the ER and admitted in the ward with a main diagnostic suspicion of ON. Patients were stratified according to suspected etiology at the time of discharge: 99 inflammatory (57.9%), 38 ischemic (22.2%), 27 unspecified (15.8%) and 7 other (4.1%). By comparing with current follow-up diagnosis, 125 patients had an accurate ER diagnosis category (73.1%), 27 had an ON diagnosis of unspecified etiology that was defined only during follow-up (15.8%) and 19 had an inaccurate diagnosis category (11.1%). Diagnostic change was more common with ER ischemic diagnosis (21.1%) compared to inflammatory diagnosis (8.1%) (p = 0.034).
conclusionsOur study reveals that most patients with ON can be accurately diagnosed in the ER through clinical history neurological and ophthalmological evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.